OCinBuffalo Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) Raise taxes on the Rich...and end up getting a lot less revenue than expected, while pissing people off and driving investment/investors/key people out of your country thus killing growth, and ending up with even less tax revenue long term! Great Plan!!! Art Laffer....laughing at your stupidity...again. No, you really are idiots. The concept that if you over-tax people, you end up getting less revenue, not more, has been explained to you. It is not only common sense for those above the age of 13, it has been proven in the real world over and over, yet you still cannot grasp this relatively simple concept...hence you are idiots. Notice how they won't release the real numbers? Why do you think that is? Because the Brits don't want to be the latest and most irrefutable example of the Laffer curve's practical applicability. This isn't some South American country....this is the UK How many more real world examples will we need for you to get it? 3? 4? What's it going to take for you to understand first, and then accept, a concept that couldn't be more obvious? Oh, and for the twits....where's the opinion here? Hint: there isn't any. All we have is fact...."progressive" hubris-killing, irrefutable fact. Silly, silly liberal/progressive....the facts are your enemies....not mine. Francesca Lagerberg, head of tax at Grant Thornton, an accountancy firm, said: "My guess is that because the 50 per cent rate was flagged up in advance many taxpayers, particularly those with their own businesses, decided to extract dividends ahead of the change. It highlights the fact that high tax rates don't always deliver high tax revenues." George Osborne, the Chancellor, is expected to receive a definitive analysis from the revenue on the 50p rate before next month's Budget. The Liberal Democrats have insisted that it must stay because it is important to demonstrate that the rich are paying their fair share. Yes, because....we aren't about actually solving the problem, which in this case is "the government needs more revenue". No, instead of solutions, we are only interested in our ideology. "demonstrate" "fair share" WTF? Forget about solving the problems....we have demonstrating to do! Edited February 24, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Raise taxes on the Rich...and end up getting a lot less revenue than expected, while pissing people off and driving investment/investors/key people out of your country thus killing growth, and ending up with even less tax revenue long term! Great Plan!!! Art Laffer....laughing at your stupidity...again. No, you really are idiots. The concept that if you over-tax people, you end up getting less revenue, not more, has been explained to you. It is not only common sense for those above the age of 13, it has been proven in the real world over and over, yet you still cannot grasp this relatively simple concept...hence you are idiots. Notice how they won't release the real numbers? Why do you think that is? Because the Brits don't want to be the latest and most irrefutable example of the Laffer curve's practical applicability. This isn't some South American country....this is the UK How many more real world examples will we need for you to get it? 3? 4? What's it going to take for you to understand first, and then accept, a concept that couldn't be more obvious? Oh, and for the twits....where's the opinion here? Hint: there isn't any. All we have is fact...."progressive" hubris-killing, irrefutable fact. Silly, silly liberal/progressive....the facts are your enemies....not mine. Yes, because....we aren't about actually solving the problem, which in this case is "the government needs more revenue". No, instead of solutions, we are only interested in our ideology. "demonstrate" "fair share" WTF? Forget about solving the problems....we have demonstrating to do! Well, that's what you say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 Well, that's what you say... :woot: No, that's what this thing called "reality" says. Or, is reality just an opinion for you? Or better, are you eternally stuck in hour #3 of an acid trip? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Well, that's what you say... You don't contribute much here other than exposing yourself as a low level target. How does it feel to be a 1%er? I'm not talking about a top 1%er either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 You don't contribute much here other than exposing yourself as a low level target. How does it feel to be a 1%er? I'm not talking about a top 1%er either. Well on his way to being a conner. And to think, just a short time ago I was reluctant to put him on that list. It's hysterical that I can basically tailor a thread to the guy, notice the tense of my OP, and he walks right into it. That is...conneresque....we'll see.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Well on his way to being a conner. And to think, just a short time ago I was reluctant to put him on that list. It's hysterical that I can basically tailor a thread to the guy, notice the tense of my OP, and he walks right into it. That is...conneresque....we'll see.... There's an appropriate bait for every fish. Some of the fish here are even susceptible to being snagged, or better yet they just jump into the boat on their own. Like a Sheephead, you just bang them over the head and throw them back. Since Sheephead have a brain banging them over the head has an affect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I've been reading about this, and this is a perfect cotrolled experiment of what not to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I've been reading about this, and this is a perfect cotrolled experiment of what not to do. You mean how a strong centralized government works better than a weak confederation? You have to see that's right, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 You mean how a strong centralized government works better than a weak confederation? You have to see that's right, right? David arent you embarrassed by now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) There's an appropriate bait for every fish. Some of the fish here are even susceptible to being snagged, or better yet they just jump into the boat on their own. Like a Sheephead, you just bang them over the head and throw them back. Since Sheephead have a brain banging them over the head has an affect. Well, it's not like we don't have Buffalo, NY, Detroit MI, and basically every other dominated for decades by Democrats inner city as further examples of the effect of over-taxing and over-spending. I mean really, where the hell is the opinion here? 20 years ago...maybe. But now? We are way past opinion here. Oh, and speaking of Detroit....amazing that they have massively cut their state's spending, appointed managers in some cases to stop the corrupt local politicians from their endless graft...forced the state employee unions to contribute to their own benefits, cut taxes across the board and forced income taxes to be cut every year, have a strict austerity plan..... ....and now have a state budget surplus as their results. But I suppose those aren't facts, or the direct results of policies that target the problem ares and problem people, etc. 80% of Detroit's public schools cannot get a single kid to pass the ACT....and yet they f'ing dare to complain about money? Seriously, it's time to consider shutting that town down, or dividing it up into smaller cities...something. And meanwhile....what do you think spending a billion dollars on Buffalo is going to do, besides line the pockets of the same old corrupt Democratic clowns here? Edited February 24, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 David arent you embarrassed by now? That I try pointing out the truth to a brainwashed twit like you? Maybe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 That I try pointing out the truth to a brainwashed twit like you? Maybe Seriously...how do you get from that Telegraph article on increased tax rates decreasing tax income, to "a strong central government is better?" Do you assume you can just spout that conclusion without reading the article at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Seriously...how do you get from that Telegraph article on increased tax rates decreasing tax income, to "a strong central government is better?" Do you assume you can just spout that conclusion without reading the article at all? He's such a pathetic POS. It's obvious from his posts and his links that he is a USA Today kind of guy/girl that reads the headlines and takes it from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Seriously...how do you get from that Telegraph article on increased tax rates decreasing tax income, to "a strong central government is better?" Do you assume you can just spout that conclusion without reading the article at all? I didn't even look at the f'n article at all. But the fact we have a strong central government, with a federal reserve, national supremacy and all, is the real reason we are so much better economically than Europe Conservatives want states right, that's actually more like the Europe they scream about. I know, I know...your brain has never gone there, therefore that's dumb, blah blah Ignorance is bliss, even for a " military historian" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I didn't even look at the f'n article at all. But the fact we have a strong central government, with a federal reserve, national supremacy and all, is the real reason we are so much better economically than Europe Conservatives want states right, that's actually more like the Europe they scream about. I know, I know...your brain has never gone there, therefore that's dumb, blah blah Ignorance is bliss, even for a " military historian" What a meat puppet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 He's such a pathetic POS. It's obvious from his posts and his links that he is a USA Today kind of guy/girl that reads the headlines and takes it from there. USA Today? Gosh, I may not be a military historian, but don't abuse me that badly! What a meat puppet So basically, you are a USA Today sort of person and really doesent know anything at all beyond basic political clap trap rhetoric? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 USA Today? Gosh, I may not be a military historian, but don't abuse me that badly! So basically, you are a USA Today sort of person and really doesent know anything at all beyond basic political clap trap rhetoric? Na, just laughing at ya... nothing more man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 That I try pointing out the truth to a brainwashed twit like you? Maybe Hmm. What about the truth that is clearly on display above? Or, are you going to tell me that somehow this is: 1. Bush's fault? 2. Not a labor party policy that has obviously failed, miserably? 3. Not predictable based on the Laffer curve? See the funny thing about proving a theory: You make a prediction based on it, and then when the data comes back that supports it, you can say that the theory has merit. This is economics, so of course we would need more cases...but that's my point, we already have them. This is simply one more example of what happens when you raise/lower taxes on "the rich" absent a solid economic basis. And, that's the best part. This is the "falsification" of the theory. If you raise taxes on the rich to exorbitant rates, you get less revenue, which proves, that if you cut them modestly, not exorbitantly, you can get more revenue. Ultimately, it's not about raising or cutting or about your stupid class warfare. The task at hand is to find the optimum rate that returns the most revenue. That's why: I'm not against raising taxes...IF AND ONLY IF....it's geared towards reaching that equilibrium....which is why Reagan/Clinton raising taxes made sense, exactly as much as Bush/JFK cutting them made sense. The difference here is: this is not some South American/Pacific Rim country that you can dismiss...this is a First World country who happens to be a financial capital of the world. You're F'ed....and you don't even know why because I doubt you understood anything I have written here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Hmm. What about the truth that is clearly on display above? Or, are you going to tell me that somehow this is: 1. Bush's fault? 2. Not a labor party policy that and then when the data comes back that supports it, you can say that the theory has merit. This is economics, so of course we would need more cases...but that's my point, we already have them. This is simply one more example of what happens when you raise/lower taxes on "the rich" absent a solid economic basis. And, that's the best part. This is the "falsification" of the theory. If you raise taxes on the rich to exorbitant rates, you get less revenue, which proves, that if you cut them modestly, not exorbitantly, you can get more revenue. Ultimately, it's not about raising or cutting or about your stupid class warfare. The task at hand is to find the optimum rate that returns the most revenue. That's why: I'm not against raising taxes...IF AND ONLY IF....it's geared towards reaching that equilibrium....which is why Reagan/Clinton raising taxes made sense, exactly as much as Bush/JFK cutting them made sense. The difference here is: this is not some South American/Pacific Rim country that you can dismiss...this is a First World country who happens to be a financial capital of the world. You're F'ed....and you don't even know why because I doubt you understood anything I have written here. but even you must admit that raising taxes is the right thing to do sometimes, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I didn't even look at the f'n article at all. But the fact we have a strong central government, with a federal reserve, national supremacy and all, is the real reason we are so much better economically than Europe Conservatives want states right, that's actually more like the Europe they scream about. I know, I know...your brain has never gone there, therefore that's dumb, blah blah Ignorance is bliss, even for a " military historian" What????? The only practical response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts